1). The normal human reaction to the thought of homosexuality is revulsion. So much so that within living memory homosexuality was criminalized worldwide.

2). The fall of the Soviet Union kicked the legs from under Leftists worldwide. Their great claim had always been that Communism was better than capitalism and that claim became no longer possible.

Leftists did not simply fade away at that point however. Their hatred of their own society was too great for that. So they simply shifted gears. Their agenda ever since has been to destroy their own society by white-anting all the values that have kept it strong, healthy and flourishing.

And sexual morality was of course a major concern in all societies at that time. The idea that children should be brought up in homes where their mother and father lived together and were faithful to one-another was preached from every pulpit and in most public fora.

So that ethic was and is a major point of Leftist attack. Destroy the family and you will very largely destroy the society. Even Karl Marx said so.

The availability of "The Pill" had in any case already destroyed one of the major pillars of traditional morality. Sex was no longer closely connected to conception so family formation was reduced. Rather peskily for the Left, however, men and women still liked one-another rather a lot and children continued to emerge, albeit at a reduced rate and sometimes in situations where they were poorly cared for. So much of traditional society survived.

So there was only one prospect for further diminishing families: Homosexuality. Male homosexuals tend not to reproduce so are unlikely to take much part in the care and nurture of children. So homosexuality had to be promoted as vigorously as possible. Getting it legalized was the first battle but the general discrediting of traditional sexual morality that came with "The Pill" made that relatively easy. The next step has been to get it socially accepted.

And that is no easy battle. Normal revulsion against it still prevails and the Biblical injunctions against it are clear to the many millions of believing Christians (See Romans chapter 1). Tolerance rather than acceptance is the most that homosexuals can realistically hope for.

Homosexuals and their Leftist allies continue to battle on however. In the name of tolerance (a widely respected value in the Anglosphere) they have managed to get most criticism of homosexuality branded as "hate speech", and in that guise criticism of homosexuality can sometimes attract serious penalties. In the USA, however, the 1st Amendment is a substantial barrier to such penalties.

So where do homosexuals go from here? Their promotion of homosexuality has gone as far as it can go but with results that are probably little more than cosmetic. But has it really gone as far as it can go? Apparently not. They have a new tactic: Misuse of the law. They sool the police and the courts onto their remaining critics. Their tactics are to make false allegations against critics and use those allegation to provoke police and court attacks on their critics. Surprisingly, it works. Out of concern for political correctness, police and the courts respond to the fase allegations as if they were substantiated -- which causes danger and problems to the critics.

Some homosexuals have become rather free with legal threats and these threats intimidate some publishers, webhosts etc. Even a false allegation can be expensive to defend and organizations with slender funding just cannot afford to do so.

The latest cave-in is from a generally bold organization: "World Net Daily". They did put up two exposes of the new tactic but took down those exposes in response to legal threats. Their funding was apparently not robust enough for them to be defiant. Below is an excerpt from one of the WND articles. You can (so far) read both articles in full here and here. Fully detailed coverage of the latest news about the matter can be found (so far) here.

A Maine homosexual activist has used a court to deliver the latest "SWAT" attack on a pro-family advocate, obtaining a protective order even though the defendant, Brian Camenker of Mass Resistance, never had contacted him, according to a new ministry report.

"SWAT" attacks on pro-family and pro-faith ministries have developed lately, and they involve someone using a telephone program and calling authorities purporting to be from the ministry or ministry leader's location. They "report" a murder, shooting or similar event. SWAT teams from local police jurisdictions then descend on the unsuspecting ministry leader and his family with guns drawn, creating high levels of danger for the innocent people.

Townhall News Editor Katie Pavlich described the practice and said it is what "far left activists are doing to silence conservatives," and it "is not a joke."

Now Camenker has documented on his website a "SWAT" attack by a homosexual activist that instead of using a phone and a police cruiser used an affidavit and a state judge in Maine.

MassResistance reported the order was sought by Adam Flanders and granted by Judge Patricia G. Worth, who said Camenker must not go onto Flanders' property, not destroy his property, not follow him and not be at his business or place of employment "without reasonable cause." And he's also prohibited from contacting Flanders.

Only he hadn't. Been on the property, destroyed the property, followed or contacted him. In fact, Camenker reports he's located nearly a day's drive away from Flanders.

The crux of the problem is a letter that Flanders publicly released a number of years ago complaining about sexual activities at a pro-homosexual organization in Maine. As part of the MassResistance effort to oppose homosexual promotions in the region, it posted the letter on its website. The letter, written by Flanders and released by him to police agencies, news agencies and various pro-family organizations such as The Christian Civic League of Maine, complained about a homosexual youth club called "OUT! . As I want to Be."

In the letter, Flanders reported sex between adults and children, marijuana use, and suicide threats and attempts. It describes "his own sexual activities with underage boys there," MassResistance reported. Flanders finished the letter, "It is my hope that the Bureau of Health will do everything in their power to seriously investigate this seemingly innocent organization that has such a dark past full of negligence, irresponsibility, sexual harassment, abuse, and ultimately emotional harm that could leave permanent scars in the lives of many vulnerable youth in Maine, or even destroy their lives completely."

Now, however, he's been approaching organizations that have his letter and demanding that it be concealed. MassResistance refused, Camenker said, and that apparently prompted the court-facilitated "SWAT" attack.

"Flanders filed a complaint in Belfast Maine District Court claiming the posting constituted personal `harassment' against him. In an unbelievable and outrageous turn of events, the district court judge agreed with him and has issued a legal restraining order against Camenker," MassResistance reported.

So now Camenker is prohibited from responding to the emails Flanders continues to send to MassResistance, Camenker told WND. "Why did Flanders write this letter, distribute it widely, and then continue having sex with young boys? We don't know for sure. But we've long observed that adult homosexuals fixated on schoolchildren are attracted to these `youth clubs' and likely continue pursuing the youths in other venues," the organization reported.

In fact, MassResistance documented that Flanders is listed on the Maine Sex Offender Register for "sexual abuse of minor." Camenker reported that an attorney advised MassResistance there was no legal basis for the demand to conceal the letter, so the organization did not. That, then, became the basis for Flanders' request for protection from Worth.

"In 2007 MassResistance published information about me on their website. This included criminal investigatory information and private information about me and other private citizens, including graphic sexual information about minors . I believe the actions . constitute stalking because it has caused me serious emotional distress," he wrote.

Camenker told WND that he arranged for a telephone conference and found the judge hostile to his concerns. He raised the issue of jurisdiction, since Flanders was complaining in Maine about Camenker's postings in another state, without success. She also declined to listen to several other concerns.

MassResistance reported, "What Flanders is claiming is not harassment or stalking by any possible definition, especially since it was presented as a public document and has been posted for nearly five years. Flanders should be charged with filing a false report. He is making wild claims about Camenker that are purposefully and blatantly untrue."

The organization also noted there is a First Amendment issue. "These kinds of things are in fact reported on and written about all the time. The whole thing was absurd and contrary to any concept of justice." The protective order arrived a short time later

"Interestingly, the judge did not order that our posting of Flanders' letter be taken down," the organization reported. "It appears that the primary purpose of this was not to `protect' Flanders, but to `punish' Camenker personally for his willingness to confront the homosexual lobby. "

"Will we be seeing more of this odious tactic against pro-family citizens? Absolutely. And in particular, as the `gay marriage' movement starts to regain ground in Maine, you can expect this will just be the beginning," MassResistance said.

WND reported several weeks ago on another tactic being used against pro-family groups. That was the filing of a lawsuit against Rev. Scott Lively by a group called Sexual Minorities of Uganda. It was filed under the Alien Tort Statute, a law that ordinarily is used to challenge torture, cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment; genocide; war crimes; crimes against humanity; summary execution, prolonged arbitrary detention; and forced disappearances.

Mathew Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, said the case was nothing more than an attempt to use "a vague international law to silence, and eventually criminalize, speech by U.S. citizens on homosexuality and moral issues."

The Ugandans allege that beginning in 2002, Lively preached in Ugandan churches and shared his opinion on homosexuality and pornography. "It further claims that as a result (albeit a convoluted one), some members of the so-called LGBTI (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex) community faced discrimination, and one (SMUG Advocacy Director David Kato) was killed on January 26, 2011," Liberty Counsel reported.

"The suit leaves out the fact that the suspected killer is a male prostitute with which Kato had sex and refused to pay.""This suit should cause everyone to be concerned, because it is a direct threat against freedom of speech," Staver said.

If you object to your news being censored, a small donation will probably put you on the mailing list for Mass Resistance. It's a sad day when only mailouts can be relied on to circulate "incorrect" news but it's looking possible.

The letter about homosexual pedophilia that Mr. Flanders is trying to get erased is readable in full here.

No comments:

Post a Comment

All comments containing Chinese characters will not be published as I do not understand them

About

This blog is written solely by John Ray, who has a Ph.D. degree in psychology and 200+ papers published in the academic journals of the social sciences. It does occasionally comment on issues in psychology but is mainly aimed at giving a conservative psychologist's view on a broad range of topics. There are very few conservative psychologists. The blog originated in Australia and many (but not most) posts discuss Australian matters. Australians have an unusually good awareness of events outside their own country. Australian newspapers feature news from Britain and the USA not as an afterthought but as a major part of their coverage. So Australians do tend to have a truly Western heart, which is the reason behind the old name for this blog. So events in Australia, Britain and the USA all feature frequently here, plus occasional coverage of other places, particularly Israel.

A primer in American politics for non-Americans:

SCOTUS is the Supreme Court of the United States, the highest court in the land

The "GOP" stands for "Grand Old Party" and refers to the Republican party. The GOP is at present center/Right, while the Democrats have been undergoing a steady drift Leftwards and now have policies similar to mainstream European Leftist parties.

The ideological identity of both parties has however been very fluid -- almost reversing itself over time. In the mid 19th century, the GOP was the party of big government and concern for minorities while the Democrats advertised themselves as "The party of the white man" -- an orientation that lasted into the mid 20th century in the South. The Democrats are still obsessed with race but have now flipped into support for discrimination AGAINST whites.

Was Pope Urban VIII the first Warmist? Below we see him refusing to look through Galileo's telescope. People tend to refuse to consider evidence— if what they might discover contradicts what they believe.

Some brief observations about Leftism

As a good academic, I first define my terms: A Leftist is a person who is so dissatisfied with the way things naturally are that he/she is prepared to use force to make people behave in ways that they otherwise would not.

Leftists think that utopia can be coerced into existence -- so no dishonesty or brutality is beyond them in pursuit of that "noble" goal

Leftism is fundamentally authoritarian. Whether by revolution or by legislation, Leftists aim to change what people can and must do. When in 2008 Obama said that he wanted to "fundamentally transform" America, he was not talking about America's geography or topography but rather about American people. He wanted them to stop doing things that they wanted to do and make them do things that they did not want to do. Can you get a better definition of authoritarianism than that?

And note that an American President is elected to administer the law, not make it. That seems to have escaped Mr Obama

That Leftism is intrinsically authoritarian is not a new insight. It was well understood by none other than Friedrich Engels (Yes. THAT Engels). His excellent short essay On authority was written as a reproof to the dreamy Anarchist Left of his day. It concludes: "A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means"

Evan Sayet: The Left sides "...invariably with evil over good, wrong over right, and the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success." (t=5:35+ on video)

Some useful definitions:

If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one. If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed. If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat. If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone. If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation. A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him. If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels. Liberals demand that those they don't like be shut down. If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church. A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced. (Unless it's a foreign religion, of course!) If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it. A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.

Death taxes: You would expect a conscientious person, of whatever degree of intelligence, to reflect on the strange contradiction involved in denying people the right to unearned wealth, while supporting programs that give people unearned wealth.

America is no longer the land of the free. It is now the land of the regulated -- though it is not alone in that, of course

Envy is a strong and widespread human emotion so there has alway been widespread support for policies of economic "levelling". Both the USA and the modern-day State of Israel were founded by communists but reality taught both societies that respect for the individual gave much better outcomes than levelling ideas. Sadly, there are many people in both societies in whom hatred for others is so strong that they are incapable of respect for the individual. The destructiveness of what they support causes them to call themselves many names in different times and places but they are the backbone of the political Left

The large number of rich Leftists suggests that, for them, envy is secondary. They are directly driven by hatred and scorn for many of the other people that they see about them. Hatred of others can be rooted in many things, not only in envy. But the haters come together as the Left.

Leftists hate the world around them and want to change it: the people in it most particularly. Conservatives just want to be left alone to make their own decisions and follow their own values.

The failure of the Soviet experiment has definitely made the American Left more vicious and hate-filled than they were. The plain failure of what passed for ideas among them has enraged rather than humbled them.

Ronald Reagan famously observed that the status quo is Latin for “the mess we’re in.” So much for the vacant Leftist claim that conservatives are simply defenders of the status quo. They think that conservatives are as lacking in principles as they are.

The shallow thinkers of the Left sometimes claim that conservatives want to impose their own will on others in the matter of abortion. To make that claim is however to confuse religion with politics. Conservatives are in fact divided about their response to abortion. The REAL opposition to abortion is religious rather than political. And the church which has historically tended to support the LEFT -- the Roman Catholic church -- is the most fervent in the anti-abortion cause. Conservatives are indeed the one side of politics to have moral qualms on the issue but they tend to seek a middle road in dealing with it. Taking the issue to the point of legal prohibitions is a religious doctrine rather than a conservative one -- and the religion concerned may or may not be characteristically conservative. More on that here

The Leftist hunger for change to the society that they hate leads to a hunger for control over other people. And they will do and say anything to get that control: "Power at any price". Leftist politicians are mostly self-aggrandizing crooks who gain power by deceiving the uninformed with snake-oil promises -- power which they invariably use to destroy. Destruction is all that they are good at. Destruction is what haters do.

Leftists are consistent only in their hate. They don't have principles. How can they when "there is no such thing as right and wrong"? All they have is postures, pretend-principles that can be changed as easily as one changes one's shirt

A Leftist assumption: Making money doesn't entitle you to it, but wanting money does.

"Politicians never accuse you of 'greed' for wanting other people's money -- only for wanting to keep your own money." --columnist Joe Sobran (1946-2010)

I often wonder why Leftists refer to conservatives as "wingnuts". A wingnut is a very useful device that adds versatility wherever it is used. Clearly, Leftists are not even good at abuse. Once they have accused their opponents of racism and Nazism, their cupboard is bare. Similarly, Leftists seem to think it is a devastating critique to refer to "Worldnet Daily" as "Worldnut Daily". The poverty of their argumentation is truly pitiful

The Leftist assertion that there is no such thing as right and wrong has a distinguished history. It was Pontius Pilate who said "What is truth?" (John 18:38). From a Christian viewpoint, the assertion is undoubtedly the Devil's gospel

"If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action." - Ludwig von Mises

Because of their need to be different from the mainstream, Leftists are very good at pretending that sow's ears are silk purses

Among people who should know better, Leftism is a character defect. Leftists HATE success in others -- which is why notably successful societies such as the USA and Israel are hated and failures such as the Palestinians can do no wrong.

A Leftist's beliefs are all designed to pander to his ego. So when you have an argument with a Leftist, you are not really discussing the facts. You are threatening his self esteem. Which is why the normal Leftist response to challenge is mere abuse.

Because of the fragility of a Leftist's ego, anything that threatens it is intolerable and provokes rage. So most Leftist blogs can be summarized in one sentence: "How DARE anybody question what I believe!". Rage and abuse substitute for an appeal to facts and reason.

Their threatened egos sometimes drive Leftists into quite desperate flights from reality. For instance, they often call Israel an "Apartheid state" -- when it is in fact the Arab states that practice Apartheid -- witness the severe restrictions on Christians in Saudi Arabia. There are no such restrictions in Israel.

Because their beliefs serve their ego rather than reality, Leftists just KNOW what is good for us. Conservatives need evidence.

“Absolute certainty is the privilege of uneducated men and fanatics.” -- C.J. Keyser

"Almost all professors of the arts and sciences are egregiously conceited, and derive their happiness from their conceit" -- Erasmus

THE FALSIFICATION OF HISTORY HAS DONE MORE TO IMPEDE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT THAN ANY ONE THING KNOWN TO MANKIND -- ROUSSEAU

"Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? there is more hope of a fool than of him" (Proverbs 26: 12). I think that sums up Leftists pretty well.

Eminent British astrophysicist Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington is often quoted as saying: "Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine." It was probably in fact said by his contemporary, J.B.S. Haldane. But regardless of authorship, it could well be a conservative credo not only about the cosmos but also about human beings and human society. Mankind is too complex to be summed up by simple rules and even complex rules are only approximations with many exceptions.

Politics is the only thing Leftists know about. They know nothing of economics, history or business. Their only expertise is in promoting feelings of grievance

Socialism makes the individual the slave of the state – capitalism frees them.

MESSAGE to Leftists: Even if you killed all conservatives tomorrow, you would just end up in another Soviet Union. Conservatives are all that stand between you and that dismal fate.

Many readers here will have noticed that what I say about Leftists sometimes sounds reminiscent of what Leftists say about conservatives. There is an excellent reason for that. Leftists are great "projectors" (people who see their own faults in others). So a good first step in finding out what is true of Leftists is to look at what they say about conservatives! They even accuse conservatives of projection (of course).

The research shows clearly that one's Left/Right stance is strongly genetically inherited but nobody knows just what specifically is inherited. What is inherited that makes people Leftist or Rightist? There is any amount of evidence that personality traits are strongly genetically inherited so my proposal is that hard-core Leftists are people who tend to let their emotions (including hatred and envy) run away with them and who are much more in need of seeing themselves as better than others -- two attributes that are probably related to one another. Such Leftists may be an evolutionary leftover from a more primitive past.

Leftists seem to believe that if someone like Al Gore says it, it must be right. They obviously have a strong need for an authority figure. The fact that the two most authoritarian regimes of the 20th century (Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia) were socialist is thus no surprise. Leftists often accuse conservatives of being "authoritarian" but that is just part of their usual "projective" strategy -- seeing in others what is really true of themselves.

"Why should the German be interested in the liberation of the Jew, if the Jew is not interested in the liberation of the German?... We recognize in Judaism, therefore, a general anti-social element of the present time... In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Judaism.... Indeed, in North America, the practical domination of Judaism over the Christian world has achieved as its unambiguous and normal expression that the preaching of the Gospel itself and the Christian ministry have become articles of trade... Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist". Who said that? Hitler? No. It was Karl Marx. See also here and here and here. For roughly two centuries now, antisemitism has, throughout the Western world, been principally associated with Leftism (including the socialist Hitler) -- as it is to this day. See here.

Leftists call their hatred of Israel "Anti-Zionism" but Zionists are only a small minority in Israel

Some of the Leftist hatred of Israel is motivated by old-fashioned antisemitism (beliefs in Jewish "control" etc.) but most of it is just the regular Leftist hatred of success in others. And because the societies they inhabit do not give them the vast amount of recognition that their large but weak egos need, some of the most virulent haters of Israel and America live in those countries. So the hatred is the product of pathologically high self-esteem.

"With their infernal racial set-asides, racial quotas, and race norming, liberals share many of the Klan's premises. The Klan sees the world in terms of race and ethnicity. So do liberals! Indeed, liberals and white supremacists are the only people left in America who are neurotically obsessed with race. Conservatives champion a color-blind society" -- Ann Coulter

Who said this in 1968? "I am not, and never have been, a man of the right. My position was on the Left and is now in the centre of politics". It was Sir Oswald Mosley, founder and leader of the British Union of Fascists

The term "Fascism" is mostly used by the Left as a brainless term of abuse. But when they do make a serious attempt to define it, they produce very complex and elaborate definitions -- e.g. here and here. In fact, Fascism is simply extreme socialism plus nationalism. But great gyrations are needed to avoid mentioning the first part of that recipe, of course.

Politicians are in general only a little above average in intelligence so the idea that they can make better decisions for us that we can make ourselves is laughable

A quote from the late Dr. Adrian Rogers, 1931–2005: "You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."

A lesson in Australian: When an Australian calls someone a "big-noter", he is saying that the person is a chronic and rather pathetic seeker of admiration -- as in someone who often pulls out "big notes" (e.g. $100.00 bills) to pay for things, thus endeavouring to create the impression that he is rich. The term describes the mentality rather than the actual behavior with money and it aptly describes many Leftists. When they purport to show "compassion" by advocating things that cost themselves nothing (e.g. advocating more taxes on "the rich" to help "the poor"), an Australian might say that the Leftist is "big-noting himself". There is an example of the usage here. The term conveys contempt. There is a wise description of Australians generally here

Heritage is what survives death: Very rare and hence very valuable

Two lines below of a famous hymn that would be incomprehensible to Leftists today ("honor"? "right"? "freedom?" Freedom to agree with them is the only freedom they believe in)

First to fight for right and freedom,
And to keep our honor clean

It is of course the hymn of the USMC -- still today the relentless warriors that they always were.

If any of the short observations above about Leftism seem wrong, note that they do not stand alone. The evidence for them is set out at great length in a MONOGRAPH on Leftism.

You can email me (John Ray) here (Hotmail address). In emailing me, you can address me as "John", "Jon", "Dr. Ray" or "JR" and that will be fine -- but my preference is for "JR"

There are also two blogspot blogs which record what I think are my main recent articles here and here. Similar content can be more conveniently accessed via my subject-indexed list of short articles here or here (I rarely write long articles these days)